Maria Pallante confronts a battle between Web giants and Hollywood. | Photo courtesy of USA.gov
Close

Pallante has approached the hot-button issue cautiously so far. At a hearing earlier this year, she told lawmakers that the money flow to illicit sites needs to be cut off, but also cautioned them to evaluate the downsides to legislation.

“It’s critical that the Copyright Act keep pace with the infringement mechanisms and it’s time to review that again,” Pallante told POLITICO.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Additionally she added that the Copyright Office “should be looking at the digitalization landscape for copyright generally, and that includes orphan works, it includes licensing, it includes preservation and it includes commercial and noncommercial works.”

Peters, who has known Pallante for decades, said her successor is well equipped for the job.

“I saw her as another who could break barriers,” said Peters, noting that most of the past registers have been male. “She has a good sense of business, she sees issues and she can work with anybody.”

Pallante worked closely with Peters during her tenure. The two first met when she was a few months out of law school and working at the Authors Guild in New York, which advocates for the protection of published authors’ copyrights, Pallante said.

She credits her then-boyfriend and now husband for convincing her to take her first copyright law class at George Washington University Law School, from which she graduated in 1990. The class sparked her interest in the copyright world and she never looked back.

A native of Westville, N.J., Pallante, who has two children, has spent most of her career hopping back and forth between New York and Washington.

After working at the Copyright Office as a policy adviser for a year, she returned to New York and went on to work for the worldwide Guggenheim Museums, serving as the intellectual property counsel and director of licensing for seven years.

Pallante said she honed her business skills and knowledge of art and architecture.

“Working inside a museum as the intellectual property counsel has got to be one of the best-kept secrets in terms of practices out there for lawyers,” Pallante said. “I feel like I got an honorary degree in contemporary art and architecture when I was there.”

Peters recruited Pallante to return to the Copyright Office in 2007. The two later teamed up on the Google Books settlement with publishers, which the office opposed, fearing it would trample the rights of copyright holders.

Pallante served as Peters’s lead counsel.

“She worked tirelessly on the whole thing,” Tepp said. “It was a gigantic project and I know she put a lot of time in on it.”

Pallante is known for being passionate about protecting the copyrights of orphan works, or materials whose copyright holders cannot be immediately located. With Google and book publishers still working to hammer out a deal to create a digital universal library, the orphan works issue is likely to rise to the surface again soon.

Pallante said she’s excited about what lies ahead.

“I’ve been walking around, talking to a lot of my staff and there’s a great vibe in the office and it’s energizing,” she said. “My creative juices are flowing.”

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 5:30 a.m. on June 6, 2011.

Chris Dodds latest-->First shield the FED from an audit, now attack the internet (how proud the Democrats must be of this slimebag).

This office is like the biggest joke yet (totally out of date) ...."theft", is that like if I have a car, and I lend my car to my brother, then he steals it? , or I "rent a car" and someone else rents it after I did, without YOU producing anything but a "law" against it? No it is not, it is either...this is something new and you people can not handle it....which is why they hired Chris Dodd and blogging firms to advocate for a failure from start to end.

Let me guess---> I hate children, support terrorists and do not wash my hands after I visit the standard d toilet?LMAO.

How about making consumers happy?....Try to keep up with the world instead?

Besides Mr "paid blogger Citizen Pain" Your time and employers time has passed.....create user friendly sites...like "streaming solutions, with better selection and "virus" protected sites and you will do just fine. (Stop punishing people who created the technology as the poor teenagers in Sweden who did only make it possible for anyone to use the technology they made......

Or learn from the "technology people, whom "upgrades and protect their innovations just fine through licences and good service-->architect designing programs etc etc...It is simply impossible to hold those companies responsible for "tracking" as this little sick idea of your employer whish, you simply can not make by law ---> Google, chrome, firefox or any other "searching" motors out there responsible for that.

Kids might still use the technology to get a "free watch, listen or whatever"--> Movies & music and entertainment programs of anysorts, will still be made. Simply because people want it AND WILL PAY FOR IT! People will choose out of interest though.

Take a good look at HBO, Spike TV, or the distributing stream sites now, and other companies solutions for the new age of ditributing and try to understand it....heck, if you want to live, spend your money on the innovators and join the new age of "distributing" ---> People still love the theatre! why is that? ---> noone loves you and the old age lawmakers though.

Protect your "property" better without asking taxpayers to police the internet.---> The 2 children from Sweden who invented this technology tool are inventors getting punished for their creativity.

But you had to rather go against the internet idea and the innovation and technology and try to hold on to the old familiar earth---the good days when the earth was flat and we burned anyone who belived it was not.

---let me guess-->civilized internet" . It will not work, artists do not demand this, innovaters did not ask for this-->only slick moneygrabbing lobbyist groups which people like "citizen paine" represent, asked for this.---->

Your comments reflect a misunderstanding of copyright law. Unauthorized use of material, no matter who holds the rights, is nothing more than theft.

Your comments reflect a misunderstanding of copyright law. Unauthorized use of material, no matter who holds the rights, is nothing more than theft.

My personal flaws to the contrary notwithstanding, I invite a discussion about the purpose of copywrite law.

It is my belief that patents last for seventeen years and copywrites last for the life of the author plus fifty years because more Senators are writers than inventors. How do you see it :-)

I propose limiting copywrites to twenty years because by then the author has been rewarded and the major part of the value of the still valuable writing now comes from the public who has accepted it as an expression of themselves, yet you seem to favor the Publishing company who bought the rights.